Great Debates: Is impugning illicit? Should it be?

The BBQ Pit
1

I would like a rules clarification. Do the Great Debates regulations outlaw any and all denigration of another poster, even if such denigration is in context and germane to the thread at hand? For instance, in the following example, has Gallant gone out-of-bounds in a manner that deserves censure?
Goofus

Congress should pass a law declaring that 2 + 2 = 5.

Gallant

Goofus, what are you talking about? 2 + 2 = 4. It’s a mathematical fact.

Goofus

I see things differently, and so do a lot of other people. Regardless of what your fancy-pants mathematicians say, life would be much better if 2 + 2 equalled 5, and if all guns were outlawed.

Gallant

Your 2 + 2 = 5 argument is the single dumbest thing that I have ever heard. Clearly you are an idiotic imbecile and I should not waste my time trying to argue with you. I’m not even going to address your gun-control argument because your insistance on changing the facts of simple arithmetic makes it clear to me that anything you have to say on any subject is foolish.

2

IMO, yes, without any question. Calling people names (“idiotic imbecile”) in Great Debates is out of line. Now, if you left that tiny part out, it would be acceptable.

3

Just when I try to get out of dictionary.com, they keep pulling me back in! :smiley:

id·i·ot·ic Pronunciation Key (d-tk)
adj.
Showing foolishness or stupidity.
Exhibiting idiocy.

\Idi*ot"ic\, Idiotical \Idiot"ical, a. [L. idioticus ignorant, Gr. ?: cf. F. idiotique. See Idiot.] 1. Common; simple. [Obs.] --Blackwall.

  1. Pertaining to, or like, an idiot; characterized by idiocy; foolish; fatuous; as, an idiotic person, speech, laugh, or action.
    idiotic

adj : insanely irresponsible; “an idiotic idea” [syn: crackbrained]

im·be·cile Pronunciation Key (mb-sl, -sl)
n.
A stupid or silly person; a dolt.
A person whose mental acumen is well below par.
A person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

adj. also im·be·cil·ic (mb-slk)
Stupid; silly.
Well below par in mental acumen.

\Im"be*cile, a. [L. imbecillis, and imbecillus; of unknown origin: cf. F. imb['e]cile.] Destitute of strength, whether of body or mind; feeble; impotent; esp., mentally wea; feeble-minded; as, hospitals for the imbecile and insane.

\Im"be*cile, n. One destitute of strength; esp., one of feeble mind.

adj : having a mental age of three to seven years [syn: imbecilic] n : a person of subnormal intelligence [syn: idiot, cretin, moron, changeling, half-wit, retard
Now, wouldn’t many (not all, but many) of the above definitions aptly apply to someone who repeatedly insisted that 2 + 2 does not or should not equal 4?

4

There’s a simple guideline - criticise the post, not the poster. It’s not the choice of insult that’s the problem, it’s the fact that you are intending to insult the poster. Just because you think a person’s being an idiotic imbecile, doesn’t give you free reign to go ahead and call them it outside the proper forum. There is a reason why we have the pit.

5

Sounds rather cut-and-dried in theory, but really it’s not so simple in practice. If I may extend the example I made in my OP:
Goofus

Gallant you’re dead wrong about everything you’ve said because you don’t believe that 2 + 2 = 5. I’m right because I know that 2 + 2 = 5. I have made a number of other cogent arguments, but they all tie into my 2 + 2 = 5 doctrine.

Gallant

How can anyone believe what this guy has to say, given that he’s making an issue out of something so trivial as the meaning of 2 + 2?

Goofus

No, it’s YOU who shouldn’t be believed because you haven’t addressed my 2 + 2 issue at all!
Now how on Earth is Gallant supposed to respond to Goofus without in some way directly criticising the poster? Is Gallant really supposed to be THAT obtuse? Doesn’t that effectively hamper free and open debate by forcing one to dance on eggshells to avoid what could be perceived as an insult, even if it’s a well-deserved characterization?

6

Why do you insist on being able to insult people in GD? Are you not able to word a response so it’s not insulting to the poster?

7

Whether they do or not is not the point. Making such an observation (correctly or otherwise) is out of bounds in Great Debates.

8

Why would you need to criticise the poster in the further example you gave? You’ve plenty of options available:

  1. You can continue to address the post, explaining why thinking 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong.
  2. You can realise that any sane person reading is going to be aware that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong and trust people to see that you’re right.
  3. You can walk away.
  4. You can take it to the pit.

There’s no need to dance on eggshells. How does not introducing personal insults hamper free and open debate? You’re free to debate what he said all you like. You can argue with what he says until you’re blue in the face. You just don’t get to make personal insults.

9

Yes, Reeder, that is indeed what I am worried about. More precisely, I am worried that it is not possible to ensure that every response won’t contain content insulting to the poster.

Maybe this is a futile question? Maybe there really can be no hard-and-fast rule, and matters merely come down to the tyranny of the moderator? If so, I’d like some reassurance from the GD moderators that they’re at least trying to adhere to some sort of objective and non-arbitrary standard.

10

There is a hard and fast rule.
No personal insults in Great Debates.
Is that so hard to understand?

11

The correct forum for discussion regarding administration of the SDMB is The BBQ Pit. I am moving this post there.

12

Ack! They’re multiplying!

13

There is only one hard and fast rule. Don’t be a jerk. Everything else is, and has to be, a judgement call by the moderators. The moderators here are fair, open-minded, intelligent people who are generally able to tell the difference between a criticism of a post and an insult to a poster. Throwing personal insults at other posters outside the pit falls under the “jerk” heading. It is not tyranny, it is moderating.

If you are worried about inadvertantly insulting someone, use your brain. You know, I hope, that calling someone and “idiotic imbecile” is a personal insult. You also know that “You are wrong and this is why…” is not. If you inadvertantly insult someone, you can say “Oop! Didn’t mean to insult you! Sorry.” and all will be well again. Here you are treated as a rational adult able to distinguish between what will and will not be insulting and to able to contain yourself to the extent that you don’t insult people deliberately outside of the pit.

14

Coincidentally, the correct forum for personal attacks on other posters, no matter how idiotic, is also the BBQ Pit. And that’s all there is to it.

15

And as a perfect example, now that this has been moved to the pit I can now tell you you’re a sorry excuse for a human being if you can’t contain yourself enough to refrain from insulting people outside of the pit.

16

I’m satisfied that my original question has been answered, but I’m not certain that the answer is satisfactory. What consitutes a “personal insult” or “acting like a jerk” is completely in the eye of the beholder and a “zero tolerance” policy will have as much of a detrimental effect as it will a civilizing one. At any rate, I’m just going to keep on trucking in the hope that some wrong-headed moderator doesn’t get a bug up their ass again. I am unsubscribing from this thread, and giving my blessing to any mod who wishes to close the thread.

17

“Some wrong-headed moderator?” Just so you understand the culture 'round here, it is generally considered polite to apologize when you force Gaudere to put on her Moderator Hat. Just suck it up and admit you made a mistake. It’s really not that big a deal, despite all this drama you’re creating.

18

A) Let me be VERY clear here: I’m not on Strut’s side. I do not think of the moderators as “tyrants”, etc.

However
B) He raises an interesting point, underneath the drivel (“Tyranny”? Bwah-ha-ha!). There is a gradation when an insult becomes personal. I’d be interested to see people’s takes (espec. the GD Mods) on where they would draw the line.

[ol]
[li]You’re an idiot and yer mother wears army boots![/li][li]How idiotic must one be to make an arguement that dumb?[/li][li]That argument is an argument that could only have been made by an idiot: an argument of sound and fury, signifying nothing[/li][li]That’s an idiotic argument![/li][/ol]

Clearly #1 is verboten and #4 is allowable, if unimpressive. But what about #2 and #3?

Fenris

19

#2 is not acceptable. #3 should slide with a mild warning.

20

#2 is jerkish. The first clause of #3 is jerkish because it addresses the argument and the poster. The second clause of #3 is fine because it addresses only the poster’s argument.